The word "Christian" appears 2247 times in the Norweigian terrorist's manifesto.

reply to post by jmdewey60


YHWH is not transliterated from I AM which is HAYAH. HAYAH (www.blueletterbible.org...) does not contain the Tetragrammaton YHWH (www.blueletterbible.org...).

Though I will concede on your point that we do not know the divine name and it is not necessary. I am not a sacred namer, though at one time I considered Messianic Judaism. I just use the Tetragrammaton, because that much we are certain of. The divine name, I believe, has been deliberately lost. It is not Adonai (Lord) and is certainly not Jehovah Yahweh is a decent transliteration for whoever feels the need for it, though there are an enormous amount of transliterations such as Yehovah, Yahoway, Yehowah, etc ad nauseaum.

reply to post by Cuervo

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

No, you're not. Arius did not deny the God of the Jews.

Arian theology leaves you with three gods and a form of tri-theism contrary to the Gospels. I cannot understand how anyone can reconcile John 1:1 with the idea that there was a time when Christ was not and that he is merely a creation.

Ok, if you want to be technical but I am not aware of Arius discussing the question of the identity of the Father in relation to the OT scripture. My views on Yahweh are a lot more recent that the reading about Arianism. He did not believe Jesus was created but that he was begotten, which is different and Arius went to great pains to explain that Jesus existed way before creation and that there was no such thing as time when Jesus was begotten.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Could you explain what you mean by this?

I meant that Christians are taught to fear a "one world religion" brought about by slips and slides into ecumenism and that I feel it's a silly fear as I rarely find two Christians who can even agree with each other let alone people of other faiths.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Could you explain what you mean by this?

I meant that Christians are taught to fear a "one world religion" brought about by slips and slides into ecumenism and that I feel it's a silly fear as I rarely find two Christians who can even agree with each other let alone people of other faiths.

I think of myself sometimes as like the last of a dying breed who knew that such a thing was coming, so I fight against it. So I may not be a good example of what is going on generally. I see religion changing and when I do, I don't see it changing for the better. It is turning into something else that is far away from God and is closer and closer to man in the sinful state.

reply to post by kallisti36


You wrote:

["Yes, this is "the ends justify the means" ideology, but God is entitled to this modus operandi, because unlike humans with good intentions who fail in this approach and just make things worse, his will will always be accomplished in the end."]

It's not only a "the ends justifies the means" ideology, it's also a "it's true, because it's true" ideology, based on the common use of circle-argumentation and orchestration of the scenario.

Ofcourse YOUR carefully groomed premises will prove YOU right.

Quote: ["This terrorist is not a Christian. He is fighting for a false, worldly Christian culture that is dying in Scandinavia."]

There's been a SIGNIFICANT silence from officialdom concerning this; the consequences of premature generalizations are against the principles of northern european democracies. But I can understand, that you already now want to cover your back, going into the 'not-a-true-christian' direction, in case he after all turns out to be a religious nutter.

reply to post by kallisti36

You made the claim that we are still under mosaic law, that was nonsense.

I made no such claim, but many denominations of Christianity still follow the 10 commandments (Mosaic Law)

I also higlighted that Jesus has no qualms with the Old Testament laws. (The laws of the prophets)

ut. You just visit polemical websites like Evil Bible.com and take quotes out of context,

Incorrect. And despite it being very easy to quote the bible of out context, much of dogma is direct, and to the point. There's no escaping the abhorrent dogma.

like the destruction of the Midianites which you will find to be pretty damn justifiable considering what they did to the Israelites (I know, you actually have to read 10-12 chapters in context to pick that up).

Again, there's no way you can justify killing children, even if the bible claims "they are like locusts" or even if it claims they are violent; killing children is immoral, and God commands it in the Old Testament. No escaping that. It's genocide.

Yes, Mosaic law was harsh by modern standards, but that is because modern society has a moral basis (thanks to Christianity and those influenced by it)

Subjective morality, I thought the bible was meant to be Objective and absolute? To say modern morality is based on Christianity is extremely ignorant, considering the atrocities that the church has committed throughout history and IS STILL committing.

The church and Christianity has problems catching up with ordinary modern morals. Treatment of homosexuals, and women, and jews.

while people back then set their babies on fire and killed people for fun.

They still kept Slaves too, and not Jesus or God has a commandment to condemn slavery. If the bible was absolute, it should have mentioned that and saved thousands of years of torture and abuse.

If the result of divine chastisement (for which there could be reconciliation beyond death) produced the Messiah by which all people might be saved, wasn't it worth it?

Much of his preaching was probably ahead of the time, probably good for society, but the moral preaching doesn't make up for the immoral preaching. Was it worth it?

It probably helped a few people out, but the Chinese already had a civilisation, they could already read and write. Perhaps it did wonders for the ill-educated folk of the desert, though.

And Immaculate Conception? the belief that the sacrifice of one human can absolve the entire sin of a species?

I don't believe that's true, and I'm not bound by a sacrifice that took place thousands of years ago in the desert.

Stop being paranoid and telling us how we should violently interpret our scripture apart from our teachings.

LOL, it's not paranoia, and it's not a case of interpretation, your scriptures are immoral and preach evil.

There are unbalanced people among us just as there are among you (Oh hey remember Columbine and all of the worst massacres of the 20th century?) and it would be best if you didn't foist your false, violent understanding of scripture on them and explain why they should kill you.

It's not false at all.

In our moral world, moral universe; there are people who will do the worst they can, and people who will do the best they can. There are people who are extremely immoral, and we have to reason those as psycopaths or sociopaths. (Like the Columbine killer or the Norweigian killer)

reply to post by Cuervo


I'm fine with ecumenism as long as it brings people into Orthodoxy and doesn't involve sacrificing Orthodoxy to make nice. People who are afraid of Christian unity are divisive and obnoxious. I can see how the Church could become a harlot through ecumenism and become the one world religion, but that shouldn't stop Christians from trying to heal the divisions and end the arguments. Anyways, I think that it is far more likely that Islam will become the One World Religion that Christians fear, and many non-Christians would agree with me on this. Of course prophecy declares that there *will* be an influential harlot Church which is undeniably Rome. Interestingly enough, after they broke off from the Pentarchy, they started the Crusades and got progressively worse, forever poisoning western Christianity. Christians shouldn't fear a healing of divisions, only union with the harlot.